Math 55a: Honors Abstract Algebra Tensor products Slogan. Tensor products of vector spaces are to Cartesian products of sets as direct sums of vectors spaces are to disjoint unions of sets. Description. For any two vector spaces U, V over the same field F , we will construct a tensor product U ⊗V (occasionally still known also as the “Kronecker product” of U, V ), which is also an F -vector space. If U, V are finite dimensional then so is U ⊗ V , with dim(U ⊗ V ) = dim U · dim V . If U has basis {ui : i ∈ I} and V has basis {vj : j ∈ J}, then U ⊗ V has basis {ui ⊗ vj :(i, j) ∈ I × J}. This notation ui ⊗ vj is a special case of a map ⊗ : U × V → U ⊗ V , which is bilinear: for each u0 ∈ U, the map v 7→ u0 ⊗ v is a linear map from V to U ⊗ V , and for each v0 ∈ V , the map u 7→ u ⊗ v0 is a linear map from U to U ⊗ V . So, for instance, (2u1 + 3u2) ⊗ (4v1 − 5v2) = 8u1 ⊗ v1 − 10u1 ⊗ v2 + 12u2 ⊗ v1 − 15u2 ⊗ v2. The element u ⊗ v of U ⊗ V is called the “tensor product of u and v”. Definition. Such an element u ⊗ v is called a “pure tensor” in U ⊗ V . The general element of U ⊗ V is not a pure tensor; for instance you can check that if {u1, u2} is a basis for U and {v1, v2} is a basis for V then a11u1 ⊗ v1 + a12u1 ⊗ v2 + a21u2 ⊗ v1 + a22u2 ⊗ v2 is a pure tensor if and only if a11a22 = a12a21. But any element of U ⊗ V is a linear combination of pure tensors. The basis-free construction of U ⊗ V is obtained in effect by declaring that U ⊗ V consists of linear combinations of pure tensors subject to the condition of bilinearity. More formally, we define U ⊗ V as a quotient space: U ⊗ V := Z/Z0, where Z is the (huge) vector space with one basis element u ⊗ v for every u ∈ U and v ∈ V (that is, Z is the space of formal (finite) linear combinations of the symbols u⊗v), and Z0 ⊆ Z is the subspace generated by the linear combinations of the form (u + u0) ⊗ v − u ⊗ v − u0 ⊗ v, u ⊗ (v + v0) − u ⊗ v − u ⊗ v0, (au) ⊗ v − a(u ⊗ v), u ⊗ (av) − a(u ⊗ v) for all u, u0 ∈ U, v, v0 ∈ V , a ∈ F . Properties. To see this definition in action and verify that it does what we want, let us prove our claim above concerning bases: If {ui}i∈I and {vj}j∈J are 1 bases for U and V then {ui ⊗vj} is a basis for U ⊗V . Naturally, for any vectors u ∈ U, v ∈ V , we write “u ⊗ v” for the image of u ⊗ v ∈ Z under the quotient map Z → Z/Z0 = U ⊗ V . Let W be a vector space with basis {wij} indexed by I ×J. We construct linear maps α : W → U ⊗ V, β : U ⊗ V → W, with α(wij) = ui ⊗ vj and β(ui ⊗ vj) = wij. We prove that α and β are each other’s inverse. This will show that α, β are isomorphisms that identify wij with ui ⊗ vj, thus proving our claim. In each case we use the fact that choosing a linear map on a vector space is equivalent to choosing an image of each basis vector. The map α is easy: we must take wij to ui ⊗ vj. As to β, we don’t yet have a basis for U ⊗ V , so we first define a map β˜ : Z → W , and show that ˜ ˜ Z0 ⊆ ker β, so β “factors through Z0”, i.e., descends to a well-defined map from Z/Z0 = U ⊗ V . Recall that {u ⊗ v : u ∈ U, v ∈ V } is a basis for Z. For all P P u = i aiui ∈ U and v = j bjvj ∈ V , we define ˜ X X β(u ⊗ v) = aibj(ui ⊗ vj). i j Note that this sum is actually finite because the sums for u and v are finite, so the sum represents a legitimate element of W . We then readily see that ker β˜ contains Z0, because each generator of Z0 maps to zero. We check that β ◦ α and α ◦ β are the identity maps on our generators of W and U ⊗ V . The former ˜ check is immediate: β(ui ⊗ vj) = wij. The latter takes just a bit more work: it comes down to showing that X X u ⊗ v − aibj(ui ⊗ vj) ∈ Z0. i j But this is straightforward, since the choice of β˜(u ⊗ v) was forced on us by the requirement of bilinearity. This exercise completes the proof of our claim. Our initial Slogan, and/or the symbol ⊗ for tensor product, and/or the formula for dim(U ⊗ V ) in the finite-dimensional case, lead us to expect identities such as ∼ ∼ V1 ⊗ V2 = V2 ⊗ V1, (V1 ⊗ V2) ⊗ V3 = V1 ⊗ (V2 ⊗ V3), and ∼ U ⊗ (V1 ⊕ V2) = (U ⊗ V1) ⊕ (U ⊗ V2). These are true, and in fact are established by canonical isomorphisms taking v1⊗v2 to v2⊗v1,(v1⊗v2)⊗v3 to v1⊗(v2⊗v3), and u⊗(v1, v2) to (u⊗v1, u⊗v2). In each case this is demonstrated by first defining the linear maps and their inverses on the level of the Z spaces and then showing that they descend to the tensor products which are the quotients of those Z’s. Even more simply we show that V ⊗ F =∼ V, V ⊗ {0} = {0} 2 for any F -vector space V . A universal property. Suppose now that we have a linear map F : U ⊗ V → X for some F -vector space X. Define a function f : U × V → X by f(u, v) := F (u ⊗ v). Then this map is bilinear, in the sense described above. Conversely, for any function f : U ×V → X we may define F˜ : Z → X by setting F˜(u⊗v) = f(u, v), and F˜ descends to Z/Z0 = U ⊗ V if and only if f is bilinear. Thus a bilinear map on U ×V is tantamount to a linear map on U ⊗V ; more precisely, there is a canonical isomorphism between the vector space of bilinear maps: U × V → X and the space Hom(U ⊗ V, X) that takes f to the map u ⊗ v 7→ f(u, v). Stated yet another way, every bilinear function on U × V factors through the bilinear map (u, v) 7→ u ⊗ v from U × V to U ⊗ V . This “universal property” of U ⊗ V could even be taken as a definition of the tensor product (once one shows that it determines U ⊗ V up to canonical isomorphism). For example, a bilinear form on V is a bilinear map from V × V to F , which is now seen to be a linear map from V ⊗ V to F , that is, an element of the dual space (V ⊗ V )∗. We shall come back to this important example later. Tensor products of linear maps. Here is another key example. For any linear maps S : U → U 0 and T : V → V 0 we get a bilinear map U ×V → U 0 ⊗V 0 taking (u, v) to S(u) ⊗ T (v). Thus we have a linear map from U ⊗ V to U 0 ⊗ V 0. We call this map S ⊗ T . The map (S, T ) 7→ S ⊗ T is itself a bilinear map from Hom(U, U 0)×Hom(V, V 0) to Hom(U ⊗V, U 0 ⊗V 0), which yields a canonical map Hom(U, U 0)⊗Hom(V, V 0) → Hom(U ⊗V, U 0 ⊗V 0). At least if U, U 0, V, V 0 are all finite dimensional, this map is an isomorphism. This can be seen by choosing 0 0 0 0 bases for U, V, U ,V . This yields bases for U ⊗ V and U ⊗ V (the ui ⊗ vj construction above), for Hom(U, U 0) and Hom(V, V 0) (the matrix entries), and thus for Hom(U ⊗V, U 0 ⊗V 0) and Hom(U, U 0)⊗Hom(V, V 0); and our map takes the (i, j, i0, j0) element of the first basis to the (i, j, i0, j0) element of the second. If we represent S, T, S ⊗ T by matrices, we get a bilinear map Mat(m, n) × Mat(m0, n0) → Mat(mm0, nn0) called the Kronecker product of matrices; the entries of M(S ⊗ T ) are the products of each entry of M(S) with every entry of M(T ). Tensor products and duality. If the above seems hopelessly abstract, con- sider some special cases. Suppose U 0 = V = F . We then map U ∗ ⊗ V 0 to the familiar space Hom(U, V 0), and the map is an isomorphism if U, V 0 are finite dimensional. Thus if Vi are finite dimensional then we have identified ∗ 0 0 Hom(V1,V2) with V1 ⊗ V2. If instead we take U = V = F then we get a map 3 U ∗ ⊗ V ∗ → (U ⊗ V )∗, which is an isomorphism if U, V are finite dimensional. In particular, if U = V we find that a bilinear form on a finite-dimensional vector space V is tantamount to an element of V ∗ ⊗ V ∗. Changing the ground field. In another direction, suppose F 0 is a field con- 0 0 taining F , and let V = V ⊗F F . (When more than one field is present, we’ll use the subscript to indicate the intended ground field for the tensor product. A larger ground field gives more generators for Z0 and thus may yield a smaller 0 tensor product Z/Z0.